Case law

Thomas A. Munz v. Tobin Michael, Deputy U.S. Marshal Kirk Papenthien, Deputy U.S. Marshal, David R. Hansen, U.S. District Judge

28 F.3d 795 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 1, 1994

Second, defendants argue that *798 the district court improperly denied their qualified immunity defense because Munz’s allegations, even if true, did not establish a violation of a constitutional right clearly established … “This court has ... taken a broad view of what constitutes ‘clearly established law’ for the purposes of a qualified immunity inquiry....” Boswell v.

Grenning v. Klemme

34 F. Supp. 3d 1144 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jul 22, 2014

Qualified Immunity “[Qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Harrington would not be entitled to qualified immunity as the right to be free from arbitrary mail searches was clearly established in 2010. (ECF No. 56 at 17-18).

Young v. County of Fulton

999 F. Supp. 282 · District Court, N.D. New York · Apr 6, 1998

Qualified Immunity Standard The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from suits against them in their individual capacity for money damages where “their conduct does not violate clearly established … established right of which a reasonable person would have known, the defendants Pape, Lockwood, Johannes, and Hasenfuss, are therefore immune from liability under qualified immunity doctrine.

Angela Bouggess v. McKenzie Mattingly

482 F.3d 886 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 16, 2007

The Supreme Court has held that defendants in such suits are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … In other words, an officer will be denied qualified immunity if he violates a statutory or constitutional right that was “so clearly established when the acts were committed that any officer in the defendant’s position, measured

Knowlton Merritt v. John E. MacKey and Jerry Howard, Knowlton Merritt v. John E. MacKey Steve Vincent

932 F.2d 1317 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 8, 1991

This court also held that Vincent and Mackey were not entitled to qualified immunity because they knowingly acted outside the scope of their employment and violated a clearly established due process right. … Qualified Immunity In Merritt I , this court held that neither Vincent nor Mackey was entitled to qualified immunity because “their conduct exceeded the scope of their authority and because they violated Merritt’s clearly

Alex LL. v. Department of Social Services

60 A.D.3d 199 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 22, 2009

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for damages when performing discretionary duties “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … “The qualified immunity standard gives ample room for mistaken judgments by protecting all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.

Lucas v. Parish of Jefferson

999 F. Supp. 839 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Mar 31, 1998

Qualified immunity protects an official from liability unless the official violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Reynolds violated the Lucases clearly established rights in moving to revoke their probation.

Whitten v. Wooten

295 Ga. App. 281 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Dec 1, 2008

Qualified immunity gives government officials performing discretionary functions complete protection from individual claims brought pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 , if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory … She claims the force was excessive and violated clearly established constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Baker v. Clearwater County

District Court, D. Idaho · Jan 3, 2022

An officer sued under Section 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity from suit, unless the officer’s conduct 1) violated a constitutional right, and 2) that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the … Thus, both of the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on the Section 1983 claims brought against them individually.

Ken Mouille, Laurie Rollins v. City of Live Oak

918 F.2d 548 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 8, 1991

Whether a defendant asserting qualified immunity may be personally liable turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the defendant’s actions assessed in light of clearly established law. … Unit A Jan. 1981) were clearly established law in this circuit.

Azucena Zamorano Aleman v. City of Charlotte

80 F.4th 264 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 16, 2023

As the district court recognized, the qualified immunity analysis consists of two prongs: (1) whether a statutory or constitutional violation occurred, and (2) whether the right was clearly established at … Nevertheless, “[a] right need not be recognized by a court in a specific factual context before such right may be considered ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity.” See Wilson v.

CYBER ZONE E-CAFE, INC. v. King

782 F. Supp. 2d 1331 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 22, 2011

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities as long as their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Because the law was not clearly established in April 2010 that the Plaintiffs’ arrest and seizure was unlawful, Defendant King is entitled to qualified immunity, and all claims against him in his individual capacity shall

Hardy v. District of Columbia

601 F. Supp. 2d 182 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 6, 2009

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from [personal] liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … right,” and “whether *188 that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violations.”

Ronald A. Mahers v. Charles Harper Ken Wittry Ronald Welder Paul W. Grossheim

12 F.3d 783 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 1, 1994

Defendants argue that even if the due process violation found by the state court is taken as a given, the right violated was not clearly established, and therefore they are entitled to qualified immunity. We agree. … In proceeding under Rule 9, defendants acted in an objectively reasonable manner, and they'did not violate any clearly established constitutional right. They are entitled to qualified immunity.

Gene Flinn v. Elaine Gordon, Dexter Lehtinen

775 F.2d 1551 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 15, 1985

Once this is established, the official is immune from liability unless the plaintiff can “prove that the defendant’s actions violated clearly established constitutional law.” Id. … Since Flinn cannot show the loss of any federal right, much less the loss of a “clearly established” right, he has failed to overcome Gordon’s qualified immunity.

David Sims v. City of Madisonville

894 F.3d 632 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 28, 2018

That is because of the second part of the qualified immunity inquiry, which requires a plaintiff to show that any violation of rights was clearly established at the time the conduct occurred. 4 When Sims was terminated in … established when Sims was fired in 2012, and Covington was entitled to qualified immunity.

Lopera v. Town of Coventry

640 F.3d 388 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · May 20, 2011

The Doctrine of Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … A finding that a right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation is sufficient to warrant a finding of qualified immunity. See Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 822 .

Lachance v. Town of Charlton, Corp.

368 F. Supp. 3d 231 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 21, 2019

Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. The First Circuit has adopted a two-part test to assess qualified immunity. … Thus, because Defendants do not argue they are entitled to qualified immunity for the common law claims, this Court need not address the existence of state qualified immunity.

Johnson v. Anhorn

416 F. Supp. 2d 338 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 2006

The law became clearly established when the Third Circúit considered the issue of qualified immunity under similar circumstances in Rogers v. … Thus, because the right in question is clearly established, Anhorn must also be denied qualified immunity as to the final plaintiff, Johnson. d.

Spenner v. CITY OF SIOUX FALLS, SOUTH DAKOTA

580 N.W.2d 606 · South Dakota Supreme Court · Jun 3, 1998

“To find whether qualified immunity applies, the test is to ask if the officer’s conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights a reasonable officer would have known at the time.” Id. … ” of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time it was taken. ****** [0]ur cases establish that the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been “clearly